LB wrote:I mean, if you don't agree with unionization, why do you shop at union stores in the first place? Go to Wal-Mart, go to Costco.

Unions don't distort the market economy, unions are just one aspect of the market economy. If they are grossly inefficient, they will be priced out of the market, just like any other archaic business practice.

Look at facts and ask questions. It's up to every thinking individual to decide for themselves.

I hate to break it to you Pro Union Obamacrats BUT there are thousands of people hoping for a lockout so they can get some work as a scab. I know 3 people with full time jobs that are planning on working part time at King Soopers to pay some bills.

I think this vulgar display of greed by the union is just what this country needs to see through the real agenda of unions, which is to put short term money in their pockets at the expense of the future of this country. Selfish.

Thank you, PMan. I really appreciate all of your posts. I still wish both sides would come to an agreement to avoid a strike but if the union does strike, I will honour the picket line. These are my neighbors and the employees at my King Soopers are all wonderful and friendly (as well as hard workers).

In one of my other posts I stated that I had to accept pay cuts and furlough days but my company IS hurting and not making a profit. If King Soopers and Safeway are still making profits it is their duty to compensate their employees. They would have nothing if it weren't for their employees. Most of whom are loyal and dedicated to their jobs. Where's management's loyalty to their employees?

The union people have every right to have contract demands, if that is the position they want to take. The buisness has every right to say, no, I wont bow to your demands and will go to another labor source to run my buisness. I am sure there are many many unemployed workers who will be willing to take the jobs the union people have but wont do. I for one will not hesitate to cross any picket line to go to buy groceries from the store of my choice! I in fact might go out of my way to do so.

imhio wrote:"Questions: If some of the members strike will John Mathewson give up any part of his annual $155k+ salary? Will Ernest L. Duran, Jr. agree to a cut from $138k+ or Ernie Duran, III, from $119k+?"

Sorry, but those salaries are barely livable these days. You can hardly buy a house on those mediocre wages. That may have been a lot back in the 1970s, but not now.

Sigh! You need to explain that to the rank and file. I'm quite certain that most every cashier or stocker would be happy to make even half of the $119k a year. Perhaps you're out of touch with reality

The employees at some grocery store chains have been threatened with termination and in some cases police action if anyone dares to expose the corruption from the top. I would tell you more, but I value my job and my customers too much to lose the opportunity to be of service to them. The corporations don't want to risk a strike because they know it would open up a very large can of worms. They couldn't care less about the employees or their customers. I hope that if a strike is warranted, the customers connect the dots to form a strong picket line. The workers care. The corporations don't.

All you Rush Limbaugh lovers out there that hate unions and like to work scab or cross picket lines, let me give you something to think about. UNIONS set the wages for entire industry's, they also set the working conditions. If it wasn't for unions everybody would be working on the weekends and there would be no standards for safety. There is a direct correlation, when unions lose their power and influence the living standards for the entire middle class decrease. If you don't agree with unions that is fine, but at least have enough respect for the people that are striking for better wages and working conditions not to work scab or cross picket lines.

Conserativeprof. Again you are very articulate and I enjoy your opinion. I believe OPEC is more of an Oligopoly and really the "point man" for the oil industry, they are willing to be the bad guy while the rest defer to them. I am not too sure about the UAW. I think they did once wield some pretty major influence but I'm not so sure now. As far as market forces setting wages, ok I agree with that but is that really possible any more.? Case in point: Honda of America in Marysville, Ohio, a non UAW shop, recently offered all employees 17K plus $1k for each year of service to leave. They are being replaced by temps @ $8 per hour no bennies. They employ over 5000 people. I don't know how many too the bait. But if market forces are at work, the biggest expense just dropped from around an average $20 per hour to $8 shouldn't the price of the autos they produce drop? When Henry Ford started the auto industry he made sure that the workers could afford the cars they were making thus ensuring a market for his product. Honda just threw that out the door. The people who control the means of production get the spoils. I'm not a communist but without some oversite the gap between rich and poor seems to be getting larger and that can be destabilizing.

Rockmamaoff wrote:In one of my other posts I stated that I had to accept pay cuts and furlough days but my company IS hurting and not making a profit. If King Soopers and Safeway are still making profits it is their duty to compensate their employees.

I've got news for you. You have an awful swelled up opinion of union influence. Maybe once upon a time, your statement might be somewhat acurate. Not anymore. Unions have put themselfs out of work in many of the industries where they once were very strong. They now have less then 20% of the work. I have no respect for a group who strives to do as little for as much as they can get away with! Unions once upon a time stood for quality and a fair day of work for a fair wage! Those days are gone! They have screwed their employers for so long by doing as little as possible for as much as they can get, that they have put many out of buisness. To stupid to realize all they were doing is cutting their own throats in the long run! Now they are getting what they deserve! Buisnesses are no longer putting up with their strong arm tactics and are able to find people who can provided a quality work ethic for a fair wage! Go on and strike! I welcome the demise of another strog arming union! Oh..lol, and that you are such an athority on what Rush Limbaugh says, is very telling and quite comical!

JFC15 wrote:All you Rush Limbaugh lovers out there that hate unions and like to work scab or cross picket lines, let me give you something to think about. UNIONS set the wages for entire industry's, they also set the working conditions. If it wasn't for unions everybody would be working on the weekends and there would be no standards for safety. There is a direct correlation, when unions lose their power and influence the living standards for the entire middle class decrease. If you don't agree with unions that is fine, but at least have enough respect for the people that are striking for better wages and working conditions not to work scab or cross picket lines.

There is a direct correlation, when unions lose their power and influence the living standards for the entire middle class decrease.

Hmmmm, I'm not a union-hater or Limbaugh lover and I'm not sure where your "fact" comes from. The general growth of the U.S. economy and the decline in union membership over the last 40 years would seem to be impossible according to your view. A historical perspective since 1960 something would support an inverse correlation.

It's also interesting to follow the argument where one side claims that a union worker earns 17% more that a non-union member while the other side counters with "the six states with the highest unemployment rates are also the most union friendly"

I am biased to some extent; I earned about three times more as a non-union employee than I did as a unionized worker.

Rockmamaoff wrote:In one of my other posts I stated that I had to accept pay cuts and furlough days but my company IS hurting and not making a profit. If King Soopers and Safeway are still making profits it is their duty to compensate their employees.

No, it is not. A companies duty is to their shareholders.

Yes, it is. Those employees helped make that company what it is. The shareholders just reap the benfits of that hard work.

It is the duty of a buisness to pay a fair wage. There is the rub! What is fair? While it is true, a buisness is nothing without workers. But that is a double edged sword. The working has nowhere to work without the employer. And in some cases, buisnesses rely on investors to stay in buisness to employ workers and pay a fair wage!Strike if you think you are not getting a fair wage or bennys. But do it knowing full well that there is someone who will gladly do your job for the wage you were getting paid!

Wait wait wait a minute. I'm not a union guy. But just because someone belongs to a union does not make them a lazy slug trying to see how little they can do. Like so many other things in life a few bad apples don't mean the whole barrel is bad. To lump all these folks into a negative catagory just because the have a union card is doing them a huge disservice. If you want to be indignant about something look at all the people in middle management. I worked in a small bank and could walk walk into the Pres. and CEO's office anytime any day. I came to work for a big bank and the layers of corporate fat between me and the CEO was enormous. They were all making a whole lot more that I was and all they had to do was threaten us with our job on conference calls on Monday and Friday. Crap runs downhill ya know. People are afraid to take all the vacation they are entitled to they, work long hours and all it goes unappreciated. What were your numbers and why aren't they better, hit your number and they get increased. meanwhile the stock price sits still for 5 years and upper management stays the same. The eariler posts on COSTCO, think about this, management isn't doing all that much different they are just showing some appreciaton and support employees .It is free to say good job. The reason unions exist is so because CEOs with their Harvard MBA's have never put 1 day in on the ground floor, the workers are just meat to hire and fire at will. COSTCO figured it out why can't everyone else?

[quote="YSMF"]I've got news for you. You have an awful swelled up opinion of union influence. Maybe once upon a time, your statement might be somewhat acurate. Not anymore. Unions have put themselfs out of work in many of the industries where they once were very strong.

Not somewhat accurate but spot on accurate. It is not the unions that have cost Americans jobs it is greedy corporations that have done that. Not content with a nice profit, they must have as much profit as possible, no matter the cost. They move labor jobs overseas or hire illegal labor here where they can pay pennies. You can not afford to live in this country making minimum wage. Unions understand that and try to keep wages decent for their members.

Terri wrote:The employees at some grocery store chains have been threatened with termination and in some cases police action if anyone dares to expose the corruption from the top. I would tell you more, but I value my job and my customers too much to lose the opportunity to be of service to them. The corporations don't want to risk a strike because they know it would open up a very large can of worms. They couldn't care less about the employees or their customers. I hope that if a strike is warranted, the customers connect the dots to form a strong picket line. The workers care. The corporations don't.

Just in case you aren't aware (the unions are required to tell you but will not) non public employee union members are "protected" from retaliation by a union under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Union Democracy (follow the link)